6
Reinventing cities critical to climate
Alex Steffen
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
KAI RYSSDAL: As our man in Copenhagen, Stephen Beard, told us yesterday, there is a whole lot more going on at the climate summit than just a bunch of people sitting around talking policy. There are protests and skeptics and side conferences, too. One of the bigger sideline events is a meeting of mayors from around the world early next week. Because whatever global deal does or doesn't get done in Copenhagen, a lot of the really hard work is going to happen on a much more micro level, in state and provinces and cities and towns.
From Copenhagen, commentator Alex Steffen says now more than ever, acting globally means acting locally.
Alex Steffen: How do we fight climate change?
Most of us have heard of engineering fixes, like swapping coal plants and SUVs with wind turbines and hybrid cars. Clean energy and green tech are critical, but they're being eclipsed by a more system-wide approach: building bright green cities. Cities offer us powerful leverage on our most stubborn, wasteful practices. Long commutes in our cars, big power bills from our energy-hogging buildings, shopping trips to buy stuff that'll spend a few short months in our homes and long centuries in our landfills.
These are unsustainable behaviors. And they're so difficult to change because they're spun into the very fabric of our cities and sprawling suburbs. Reweave that fabric, and we find change much easier.
For example: start building homes together, in compact, walkable neighborhoods, and suddenly, people don't drive as much. Upgrade our energy systems with high-tech monitoring, and people start living radically more energy-efficient lives by default, rather than exception.
Innovations like zero-energy buildings and post-ownership consumption sound complicated, but in reality, they're meaning is simple: We now know how to deliver a higher standard of living with dramatically lower ecological impacts. The future of cities can be both bright and green.
And that's critical, because the world is building cites faster than ever. Billions of young people are leaving their villages, seeking better lives in the emerging mega-cities of the global south. If we can't find a way to meet their needs, sustainably, no climate treaty will help us. But if we in the global north can reinvent our cities, we will not only slash our own pollution, but provide a pathway to sustainable prosperity for the rest of the world, too. And that, in turn, means markets for these innovations and billions of new customers.
Develop bright green urban solutions and we may not only save the planet, but find the 21st century's best business opportunities in the bargain.
Ryssdal: Alex Steffen is the author of "World Changing: A User's Guide to the 21st Century."
I think people who believe that the "market" has doomed urbanism to failure need to check that assumption. Cities are growing and thriving globally and in the U.S., have weathered the downturn better than suburbs, and are showing better prospects for the future. Take a look at the cost of an apartment in New York City, D.C., or San Francisco if you want to know what the market values. Additionally, sprawl apologists who believe Americans have chosen the suburbs need to look in the mirror. Research shows that it is regulation that is often a barrier to increasing density - everywhere, but especially in the suburbs and exurbs. It's not the market that doesn't want sustainable urbanism, it's your neighbors who want to ensure exclusion and exclusivity. Large lot zoning is a product of a lingering xenophobia in communities that prefer immigrants and the poor not come knocking on their schoolhouse doors. Eradicate these unconstitutional and un-American regulatory chains on land markets and just watch our cities bloom. Urbanism makes economic sense and it just happens to be a veritable boon for reducing our impact on the global climate. It is truly win-win climate change policy.
I think the root of the problem is our deep faith in an economic model that does not even approach sustainability. You don't have to search to find the economically educated cheerleading for a model that has to coninually seek out new pools of resources as it quickly depletes anything it can find. Everybody knows (or certainly should know) that you cannot have continuous and unending growth in a finite world. Just pose the question ("what would happen if...") in the age appropriate terminology to a first grader if you don't believe this is common/base knowledge.
Steffen offers the same tired prescreptions that environmentalists have been pushing for the last 50 years: abandon suburbia for downtown high-rise apartments, get crushed on crowded subways rather than jammed freeways, embrace voluntary poverty.
We need 21st century solutions for 21st century problems, and we need to work with human nature and natural social forces rather than against them. Land has been a symbol of wealth ever since agriculture was invented -- suburbanites already have the choice to live in dense "walkable" communities and have said "no thanks". Internet fiber to the home makes the daily commute obsolete for office workers, no matter how far you live from your boss's own office. Rooftop solar power truly is "too cheap to meter" -- when you can charge your car with electric or photolyzed hydrogen power that your own house has produced, trips to shopping centers or to concerts become effectively non-polluting.
Finally, we need to invent a way to decouple wealth produced by extractive, polluting means from informational and other unbounded sources. I hate giving governments new ways to take from citizens, but a value-added tax might provide a way to disaggregate the costs and reassign the losses we all suffer from pollution, climate change and habitat destruction back to the people and companies that cause them.
Fully "green" cities are a luxury. Now, some luxuries--like seatbelts and airbags in cars, and smog-free air in cities--are worth requiring everyone to pay for. But before considering adding yet more requirements, we have to understand that every luxury we require adds yet more costs. And considering that the economy is now reeling from the blow of being forced to absorb the costs of the luxury of lending money to non-credit-worthy debtors, do we really want to strike yet another blow to keep it from recovering for another long while yet?
Alex, I am 100% in alignment with your position. However, I fear that too much attention has been put to relevant legislation and incentives, meaning that everyone wants a sustainable planet but few are willing to do something about it.
Ford's Model T success was based on a product with outstanding value for money. To use a recent example, there are more cell phones out there than pockets to put them on! No legislation made these products a success.
My point is that Sustainable Environment will have to become an "irresistible product" so that people can put their eyes on. People in urban areas tend to forget that the most significant commodity on Earth (fresh air) is nearly “out of stock†even for the wealthiest resident.
To me, "Global Warming" is one of the most unsuccessful marketing approaches ever. Don't get me wrong, Global Warming is happening but it is merely an effect. The cause, which by the way leads to a lot more serious and imminent problems than global warming, is the use of fossil fuels in exchange for energy.
There are a lot more I want to write and even more that I intend to do about this and I look forward to partner with like minded people to make that shift from wishful thinking realised fact.
This goes back to Jane Jacobs' fight.
The architecture discipline has been advocating this approach for decades. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) has a system called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). It a system of verified compliance with a host of environmental building issues. Part of that system credits development in areas with access to public transit, and walking distance to services such as schools, stores, and government offices.
Also, take a look at Architecture2030.org.
